Question on Face the Nation this morning: Will there be a revolution?

[merrily]

Mark Halperin said, if Bernie is the nominee, if people turn out to vote for him in the general, there will be a revolution. He will have coattails

(not exact words, but close enough.)

Inasmuch as this is similar to what I have been posting, I admire Mark Halperin's perception on this point.

What Halperin did not say, but what I think is implied by his response--and certainly what I believe: If Hillary is the nominee, no coattails. Just not enough enthusiasm.

[LiberalElite]

1. IMO she doesn't need coattails

the oligarchy is already here. She'd just ensure its continuation.

[merrily]

2. The 1% should definitely vote Hillary and the rest Sanders. I agree!

[appalachiablue]

3. I look forward to Bernie defining what he means by revolution, a political non-violent

one in the most basic way for average Americans who lack historical perspective, even how this country was founded in revolution and TJ called for an evaluation of our democracy every 19 to 20 years.

Although most pundits are educated about the concept, lower Fox type commenters and others will exploit any uncertainties and fear this vast group has about the idea of revolution to the max, especially with a socialist candidate.

Bernie is well aware of this, is already effectively communicating his message to millions and will tighten it up on this point and others in the weeks to come and for the 2nd debate.

[merrily]

5. The New Deal was a bloodless revolution. So was the takeover of the Democratic Party by the DLC.

[appalachiablue]

8. So was Reagan's counter revolution but most Americans don't think of these

major political changes as 'revolutions' IMO. Rather revolution to many is something that happens in 'other places', is scary, negative and radical. The way it seems to me anyway. If you don't define yourself others will is what I'm saying, obviously.

[merrily]

9. IMO, the takeover of the Democratic Party was more of a revolution.

What Reagan did with the Republican Party was a matter of degree. Democrats had kept Republicans in check. Once they stopped doing that economically, the 99% went into free fall.

[Enthusiast]

13. Excellent relevant point.

"Democrats had kept Republicans in check. Once they stopped doing that economically, the 99% went into free fall."

[merrily]

14. That the Democrats ceased trying to keep the Republicans in check to the degree that they once had

is, IMO, one of the major things responsible for the rightward lurch of the nation since 1980.

[Enthusiast]

34. No question about it. We are supposed to be fine with it. We are expected to STFU and

vote for a DINO.

[appalachiablue]

18. The Dem. Party's transition/continuation of free market Reaganomics and beyond was

profound yet more stealth in execution to me than Reagan's outright declaration and action to dismantle the New Deal, etc. Both operations/revolutions had catastrophic consequences for American workers and the middle class in the ultimate forging of the bi-partisan 20 year neoliberal globalization mess that we're mired in now.

To put it another way, I knew of Reagan's intentions, set up and early dismantling, but pretty much missed the depth of what was happening to the Dem. Party in regard to the Third Way. At the time I didn't realize the impact of prominent figures like Greenspan, Rubin and others under Clinton. Some damn busy years those late 80s, 90s and early 2000s were (the 2000s 'ought years' as Chris Hayes says). But hindsight is great!

Sanders is the most influential candidate in this campaign. I want the pol revolution he proposes to be understood, supported and started so we can begin to move forward. On one of the talk shows this am Warren's name came up, as possible VP with Biden who's now expected to enter the race this week. Months ago Joe had a mtg. with her and if they made an agreement as some think that'll be a very interesting development. Doubtful but we'll see.

[Demeter]

17. Reagan's revolution killed a lot of people

both at home and abroad. It just didn't get much press. Reagan's masters had the entire country in a stranglehold, and information was suppressed like mad.

With the Internet, Obama found out he couldn't do that...and he was very put out about it.

[appalachiablue]

23. Yes, agree about Dutch's revolution and suppression. Dems. were also in a bit of disarray,

understatement. Another valid point about the internet and Obama, interesting twist.

[jwirr]

16. Exactly.

[TexasBushwhacker]

4. I agree. Bernie is more likely to have a down-ticket

effect. It's certainly important to have a Dem in the Whitehouse, but it's even more important to take back control of the House and Senate. We've seen what an obstructionist Congress does.

[merrily]

6. Third Wayers taking back the House and Senate would not be a revolution.

[TBF]

7. Seriously.

[appalachiablue]

21. Absolutely right about the importance of congressional reps. and state positions, fingers crossed.

This can't be emphasized enough. GOTV en mass like Bernie stresses, amen.

[Babel_17]

10. Good that Halperin brought up the implications of a Sanders win

It will be a clear message.

[LiberalArkie]

11. Thank you for the post. I agree and was jumped on mightily last week for saying

the same think. There are several new faces running as Democrats in the upcoming election. They are running as Liberals and not moderates. So I think quite a few are ready.

I agree about if HRC wins the nomination, if that happens, I hope Bernie and others get out and campaign for the new Democrats running in the General election. If that doesn't happen I feel a lot of people will just sit the general out. That will be bad news for a lot of local and state elections.

[merrily]

12. I don't agree with you on this.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Thank you, merrily. I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own . . .

<rant>
Well, we always said that the revolution will not be televised. The networks, broadcast and cable, are part of the oligarchy. They are part of the decadent aristocracy that needs to be removed from power, the sooner the better.

If you are getting your news from the MSM (by which I have never included FoxNews), then you are as misinformed as you would be watching FoxNews.

Kill your television set. Block ads on the internet. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not not going to take the oligarchs' fucking bullshit any more.

Who stands for the primacy of humanity over artificial persons? Who believes that life on a sustainable planet is more important than corporate profits? Stand up for the common people over the pretentious elites. We can run the world better than they can.

If this is socialism, let us make the most of it.
</rant>

[merrily]

22. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

I don't know which Bernie supporter said we all need to start calling ourselves Spartacus Democratic Socialists. I agree. I used to call myself a traditional Democrat or a New Deal Democrat, but it took Bernie running and a smart fellow DUer to show me I should be calling myself a Democratic Socialist.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, merrily.

[merrily]

24. My pleasure, Uncle Joe. Thanks for the K & R.

[Uncle Joe]

25. ...

[fbc]

20. Why would Hillary want a democratic congress?

She might have to do democratic stuff. She wants 8 years of bad compromises with right wing lunatics.

[merrily]

27. Some day, when we both have a lot of time and energy, ask me about the Coakley v. Brown Senate race

for the 60th seat in the Democratic caucus. Well, it started with the primary, but, as I said, we'd need more time and energy than I at least have today.

[DhhD]

31. If she got the nomination, wouldn't she have to move Left further exposing her world of

privatization?

I can see it now, during the first presidential debate, a question is ask about bank privatization. The Leftist answers the same after the Rightist answers-No Glass-Steagall. (Absurd statement just like the situation.)

Edit to Add: Privatization Bill:
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/10/clinton-signs-privatization-bill/4725/

On Monday, President Clinton signed the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, which requires federal agencies to review their activities and define them as either inherently governmental or potentially subject to privatization. The bill had passed the Senate in August and the House earlier this month.
more at link

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Yes, and Mark Halperin will be first up against the wall! ;)

I kid, I kid!

(Chuck Todd will be.)

[merrily]

28. Maybe Jamie Dimon, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. Reaganomics was considered to be a "revolution" back then....

People forget that Reagan ran as a REFORMER who was going to get rid of the massive bureaucracy that only existed in Republican's imagination. He claimed the ONLY reason your company couldn't give you a raise was because the government was taxing it to death and making it "buy expensive smoke scrubbers for the chimneys". (Back then a lot of factories had their own power station fueled by coal and the major environmental issue was acid rain.)

People voted for Reagan so they could get a raise but the rich never put the money into payroll.

[merrily]

30. Republicans had long claimed that government regulation was bad for business and therefore bad for

all Americans.

The New Deal was the aberration. Remember, in order to keep it in effect, FDR had to threaten to pack the Supreme Court. Prior to its chastening, the Court had been striking down one piece of New Deal legislation after another, saying the federal government did not have the power to enact such things.

Many politicians run on change, which means "reform." Reform used to be considered a good thing. Now, I cringe when a politician of either party promises reform.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. The difference is Reagan told people they would get a raise....

People assumed he was on their side because he wouldn't risk his movie career legacy.

Not that he actually had one worth protecting.

[DianeK]

33. when i heard him say that this morning...

i said right out loud to my tv...Thank you! finally one of these talking heads gets it!

[winter is coming]

35. There will be a revolution. There are only two questions:

1) When will it come?

2) How much blood will be shed?

IMO, we are creeping uncomfortably close to the point where a peaceful revolution may cease to be possible. If a status quo candidate wins in 2016, I'm not hopeful about our chances of avoiding violence, whether it's by ordinary people revolting against the 1% or by police trying to suppress protesters.

[merrily]

36. IMO, there will not be a bloody revolution in the US for the same reasons

none occurred in the 1930s.